Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7112963" data-attributes="member: 5142">Paladins and rapiers, kettle. Paladins and rapiers. Which applies to a number of classes (e.g. bard, cleric, monk, etc.) in D&D, does it not? As were the ranger and paladin subclasses of the fighter. You are welcome to subsume them back into the fighter, but this should be consistent. And it certainly seems odd, if not hypocritical, that we have no problem with so many full arcane spellcasters, but find druids and nature clerics redundant. I have seen players, again myself included, play for both. It's part of the appeal of the druid. For me though, part of the fun of the druid is having the full magical power of nature and shapeshifting at your command. Now, even for those who want to play the druid for shapeshifting there are problems with the 5E Druid - such as preferring a particular form for the aesthetic (e.g. dire wolf, eagle, etc.) - and simply turning the druid into more of a shapeshifter would do little to address those problems with how Wild Shape is presently designed. I agree that the subclasses of the druid (as well as the ranger and fighter) were poorly implemented or thought-out, especially given how the capstone of the druid incentivizes the Moon Druid over the Land Druid. The 5E Druid almost comes across as "Oh, <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />! We have a subclasses model for classes, so let's split this core druid up!" But another, if not more pressing problem, is not simply the presence of Wild Shape but how it is designed in the first place. I would much rather explore addressing the problems of Wild Shape in 5E before resorting to a radical reconceptualization of the D&D Druid. An additional alternative druid or a possible direction for the shape of the druid in a hypothetical 6E? To me the shape of the 6E druid (and its subsequent future) is the worst case scenario. That may be a long way off, but it will always be a lingering thought that the old-druid will be on the chopping block in favor of this neo-druid. Irrational? Perhaps. But that is my gut reaction to Mearls's comments.</blockquote>

Verification